Introducing new techniques into house building in the UK is very welcome but only if it can deliver consistent quality and quantity.

We are all familiar with the negative aspects of mass produced housing, embodied by the tawdry post-war prefabs. But with modern methods of construction, it is logical that building homes from larger component parts that have been produced in factories and slotting in when required can generate time and cost savings.

Off site methods of construction have already been used in the construction of new hospitals for a number of years, resulting in buildings that are more sustainable, comfortable and have greater longevity.

It's also been used, to a certain extent, in some housing schemes. A few years ago, for example, at the Paragon development in Brentford, west London, we produced an innovative design using modular construction to enable a faster build and a shortened construction programme.

However, the challenge in housing, where thousands of buildings could potentially be produced, lies in scaling up volumes to achieve anticipated savings while maintaining the attention to detail necessary to sustain quality standards. This is why previous attempts have stalled – such as with the problems of 1960's system build or 1980's timber frame – as gearing up to deliver an innovative product in volume requires the application of advanced manufacturing techniques which are not always common in UK housebuilding.

Despite modern methods of construction, there will of course still be some stigma attached to any type of prefab housing, suggesting a second class product designed for a shorter life than masonry. At the same time, bespoke manufactured properties can attract a premium. For example, the Huf Haus featured in Grand Designs is perceived as an aspirational product, garnering the same admiring stares as a Ferrari or Lamborghini.

It is also interesting to note that many of the pre-war prefabs, such as the Excalibur estate in south London, are now valued and their occupiers are reluctant to leave despite poor insulation and overall deterioration of the components that have survived long after their design life. This is partly down to space and internal amenities but, whatever the reason, good design is vital.

Besides impressive reductions in energy bills, mass produced housing can offer a range of benefits:

• Faster construction and a faster return on investment. Modular construction can reduce the overall completion schedule by as much as 50%.• Indoor construction. Assembly is independent of weather, which increases work efficiency and avoids damaged building material.• Low waste. With the same plans being constantly built, the manufacturer has records of exactly what quantity of materials is needed for a given job. While waste from a site-built dwelling may typically fill several large skips, construction of a modular dwelling generates much less waste.• An environmentally friendly construction process. Modular construction reduces waste and site disturbance compared to site-built structures.• Flexibility. Conventional buildings can be difficult to extend.• Healthier builds. Because modular homes are built in a factory, the materials are stored indoors in a controlled environment, eliminating the risk of mould, mildew, rust, and sun damage that can often lead to human respiratory problems.

Nevertheless, maintenance and repair of such properties can sometimes be more complex and costly. Masonry walls are of a uniform bearing capacity and a shelf or kitchen cabinet can be fixed just where it is required. But with a modular or timber constructed property, fixings need to be made to the structural, load bearing elements of a wall. The energy efficiency and weather tightness of a modular home can also be compromised by puncturing the membranes within panels, for example drilling through a panel can create a hole in the inner materials.

Perhaps the best analogy is to look at the motor industry where innovations tend to be introduced first into premium products and as the technology is proven and better understood it is gradually introduced into lower priced models.

The reverse process seems to apply to housing; a new technology can save money so it goes from prototype to high volume production with inadequate attention to planning production, designing new processes and upskilling the labour force. Forcing the pace of innovation through financial incentives for low-cost housing risks repeating past errors and losing the opportunity to transform the ways homes are built.

Tony Hutchinson is associate director for regeneration and development management at Capita Symonds

This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. Join the housing network for analysis, best practice and the latest job vacancies